In the run-up to the Wii U’s recent release, Nintendo frequently said the touchscreen-equipped GamePad wouldn’t just enable new types of games and gameplay, it would also help improve traditional games ported over from other systems. By adding touchscreen controls and an extra informational display to the standard analog sticks and buttons, the argument went, the Wii U versions of multiplatform games would provide a superior experience simply impossible on other systems.

We’ve now had a chance to check out many of the ports clogging the Wii U launch lineup. While there are a few games that are improved by the new system, overall we were unimpressed with the new features offered by the GamePad.

Technically, the Wii U ports are perfectly adequate versions of games released on the Xbox 360 and PS3 in the last year or so, with HD graphics that aren’t strikingly better or worse than the versions on competing consoles. While we noticed a bit of pop-in and stuttering on certain games (most notably Madden NFL 2013 and Assassin’s Creed 3), we’re willing to chalk that up to porting issues rather than raw hardware power. And while many of the Wii U versions have additional content over those released earlier on other systems (much like a Game Of The Year Edition), we’re specifically interested in the kind of GamePad-enabled content that wouldn’t be possible on an Xbox 360 or PS3.

Almost every port on the Wii U can be played either on an HDTV or in a “GamePad-only” mode that uses the touchscreen as a lower-resolution TV screen. Games look perfectly adequate when viewed on this screen, but decidedly washed out and blurry when compared to the HD picture on a big-screen TV. The GamePad can also be used as a second TV altogether, allowing a local player to have his own separate viewpoint without the need for split screen. Black Ops 2 seems to be the only launch window port to make use of this kind of dual-screen setup, and the feature is actually one of the best demonstrations of the GamePad’s potential to improve traditional, local multiplayer games.

In any case, using touchscreen-only mode does away with the touchscreen specific controls and extra information options provided when you play on the TV. These features are going to have to be strictly optional to the gameplay, and it shows in the way most of the ports implement them.

Take a game like Tekken Tag Tournament 2. The Wii U version uses the GamePad’s screen real estate to list four chosen special moves for your current character, and lets you activate each one with a quick tap, rather than a complicated sequence of directional presses and face buttons. This ends up being a handy (if a little cheesy) way to pull off some difficult moves without having to worry about getting your fingers twisted up. But you can also pull off these moves simply by holding the left trigger and then pushing a corresponding face button. Not only is using the buttons more convenient, but it’s also the only way to use this feature if the touchscreen is being used as your primary display.

Similarly, in Mass Effect 3, you can assign up to eight special powers for you and your squad to a set of touchscreen buttons along the sides. In some ways, this is an improvement over the strictly button-based controls, which only allow you to set up button combinations for five quick-fire powers. But the awkwardness of trying to find and tap the right part of the touchscreen in the middle of a firefight had us returning to the button-based controls quickly.

In almost every port we played, any touchscreen control options meant to be used in the middle of the action were less convenient and more awkward than simple, button-based options for the same functions. Since there’s no tactile feedback on the touchscreen, you usually have to consciously look down to see where you’re tapping before awkwardly moving your thumb off the analog stick to reach for the touchscreen. Not only is the process slower than just hitting a button (or buttons) to do the same thing, but it carries a significant risk of mis-clicking as well.

Touchscreen controls worked much better in situations that were less time sensitive. In the Wii U version of Madden 2013, for instance, you can map out new routes for receivers from the line of scrimmage by tapping and dragging with your finger. It’s a useful, well-integrated feature and one that’s not easy to replicate without a touchscreen. In Just Dance 4, the ability for a spectator to choose the next song without pausing to go into a menu is also nice, though the game still pauses between songs to confirm controllers, which ruins the flow a bit.

Enlarge/Ninja Gaiden 3's list of combo moves was a next-to-useless use of the GamePad touchscreen.

Kyle Orland

In general, the Wii U GamePad is more useful for displaying additional information than providing additional controls for ported titles. Plenty of games use the touchscreen to display a large map for the player to consult during gameplay. This is especially useful in Black Ops 2 multiplayer, where the large touchscreen map helpfully expands on the smaller on-screen mini-map and practically shows the entire playfield (oddly, this feature is missing from the single-player game).

The Wii U version of Mass Effect 3 features a zoomable map on the touchscreen that can be helpful for finding your next objective and pinpointing where that last enemy is hiding out. Epic Mickey 2 also maps your immediate surroundings on the GamePad, but it seems to lack the fine detail necessary to be really helpful.

Outside displaying maps, though, most developers of Wii U ports have struggled to find another really good use for the touchscreen’s extra display. In Transformers Prime, the screen displays a persistent list of optional objectives for the current level, which just feels like a waste of space. Ninja Gaiden 3 uses the touchscreen to show a scrollable list of button-based moves and combos, which is nearly impossible to use at a quick glance. And in the single-player game, the touchscreen is useful for adjusting control options and... well, not much else.

Probably the most surprising use of the Wii U GamePad in the launch window ports comes from the games that use the controller’s speakers to create a more immersive experience. In Mass Effect 3, immediate sound effects like your footsteps and the “pew pew” of your weapons come out of the GamePad rather than your TV speakers, providing a nice, subtle impression that you’re actually inhabiting Shepard’s body. The effect is more explicit in Arkham City, where radio discussions with unseen characters are piped through the GamePad speakers. It sounds cheesy, but it’s actually a pretty neat effect, abetted by the quality sound reproduction of the GamePad’s surround sound speakers.

Largely, most of the Wii U ports so far seem to view the touchscreen as an afterthought. With a few exceptions like Black Ops 2, the extra control and information options offered don’t do much to substantially affect the experience. In the future, more developers are going to have to develop with Nintendo’s new system in mind from the start if they want to make the most of its unique controller.

Promoted Comments

This is a perennial problem for Nintendo: the only developer that cares about building games that truly take advantage of their system's unique features is...Nintendo itself. Third-party developers would rather bring a game to as many platforms as possible, and as a result, they develop games that are "lowest common denominator" – they work on all the major consoles, but they don't take advantage of each one's specific abilities.

I have a Wii, and to this day, I haven't come across a third-party game that makes better use of the Wii Remote than Wii Sports, Nintendo's own launch title.

I think this is why Nintendo's success is so heavily tied to games that use their own IP (Mario, Zelda, etc.): they're generally the only games that actually exploit the abilities of the hardware. That's why with every new system, there's a new Mario Party, a new Mario platformer, a new Mario Kart, a new Zelda platformer, etc., etc. Sure, there's a lot of history with those characters and people recognize them, but say you took one of these terrible third-party games and dropped Mario in place of the lead character – people wouldn't keep flocking back and dying with anticipation of the next new Mario game.

Anyway, that's my theory. Nintendo needs to create more incentive for third-parties to develop specifically for their consoles; I just don't know how.

I think the touchscreen is a lot easier to make use of than motion controls, it has an obvious use case for almost any genre of game. Launch games always suffer from short development times and immature devkits. I heard Nintendo's early devkits are notoriously bad, along lines of "here are some circuit boards, we don't know what they do yet, good luck!" It's likely a lot of these games were developed for a console where the specs weren't really known yet.

The only port I've gotten for the Wii U is Batman: Arkham City, and they've forgotten to mention a couple of features that this game uses. When aiming something (like a Batarang) or using Detective Mode, you use the GamePad's built-in sensors for precision aiming. Also, you can tilt the GamePad to steer Batman while gliding. Admittedly, tilt steering takes some getting used to, I constantly found myself over-steering at first.

Touchscreen has been established as a viable controller for gaming. It doesn't take much digging through multiple Nintendo DS and iOS games to get a feel for what you can do with the touchscreen.

In fact, you could probably take a fair number of Nintendo DS games and port them to Wii U with improved graphics/sound. Why not? You have two screens. One of them is a touch screen. That would work as long as Wii U games don't require "no TV mode" though.

I am very surprised that Blizzard did not plan for ports of Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as they are both very conducive to a touch screen like the one the Wii U utilizes. Touch the little screen for the troops and units in SC2 and watch the action on the big screen. To me it seems obvious. Same for D3.

History rhymes. How long was it before third-party Wii games started using the Wiimote for anything interesting?

Exactly. Though I hold out more hope for the touchscreen being used for some unique stuff. At least devs got to practice with the Nintendo DS/3DS, and phone/tablet games (not that I want to play phone/tablet games on my Wii U). The Wii Remote mostly got used for menu navigation and waggling.

This is a perennial problem for Nintendo: the only developer that cares about building games that truly take advantage of their system's unique features is...Nintendo itself. Third-party developers would rather bring a game to as many platforms as possible, and as a result, they develop games that are "lowest common denominator" – they work on all the major consoles, but they don't take advantage of each one's specific abilities.

I have a Wii, and to this day, I haven't come across a third-party game that makes better use of the Wii Remote than Wii Sports, Nintendo's own launch title.

I think this is why Nintendo's success is so heavily tied to games that use their own IP (Mario, Zelda, etc.): they're generally the only games that actually exploit the abilities of the hardware. That's why with every new system, there's a new Mario Party, a new Mario platformer, a new Mario Kart, a new Zelda platformer, etc., etc. Sure, there's a lot of history with those characters and people recognize them, but say you took one of these terrible third-party games and dropped Mario in place of the lead character – people wouldn't keep flocking back and dying with anticipation of the next new Mario game.

Anyway, that's my theory. Nintendo needs to create more incentive for third-parties to develop specifically for their consoles; I just don't know how.

History rhymes. How long was it before third-party Wii games started using the Wiimote for anything interesting?

Red Steel came out at launch, actually. The problem was that a lot of people didn't really build games around the Wiimote, so the Wiimote very often went pretty much unused. Let's face it - even Nintendo themselves essentially only used the Wiimote effectively in the sports games, Wii Fit, Metroid Prime, and Skyward Sword - and Skyward Sword, along with Red Steel, kind of highlighted the shortcomings of the wiimote in many ways. It just never felt natural with those games, unlike Metroid Prime and the sports games, where it flowed very smoothly into the rest of the game.

Admittedly I have never played Red Steel 2.

It isn't that the Wiimote is useless (it is great for rail shooters, and works fine for FPS type games) but rather than it is use-impaired - it is only good for some specific genres, and outside of those you'd have to build a game around the Wiimote to use it effectively.

The same applies to the touchscreen, really, except that it is much more versatile - a lot of games -can- use extra screens, even if in a somewhat mediocre manner, and there are games that you just can't build without two screens or without a touchscreen.

I am very surprised that Blizzard did not plan for ports of Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as they are both very conducive to a touch screen like the one the Wii U utilizes. Touch the little screen for the troops and units in SC2 and watch the action on the big screen. To me it seems obvious. Same for D3.

Not Starcraft 2. If the screen is used as a mouse-like interface, you can't input 300 actions per minute, and if you use the screen as a touch keyboard you can't do unit selection as fast and precise as a mouse.

Starcraft 2 at present is designed as a fast-paced, competitive 1v1 RTS. Other RTSs made for casual play might work but if you're not following pro tournaments and strategies there is no ongoing reason to play beyond the campaign.

I am very surprised that Blizzard did not plan for ports of Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as they are both very conducive to a touch screen like the one the Wii U utilizes. Touch the little screen for the troops and units in SC2 and watch the action on the big screen. To me it seems obvious. Same for D3.

SC2 would be horrendous on consoles generally and the tablet wouldn't help at all. Could you really have accurate 100+ APM on the touchscreen when there are dozens of units that need to be clicked on and controlled?

I am very surprised that Blizzard did not plan for ports of Diablo 3 and Starcraft 2 as they are both very conducive to a touch screen like the one the Wii U utilizes. Touch the little screen for the troops and units in SC2 and watch the action on the big screen. To me it seems obvious. Same for D3.

Not Starcraft 2. If the screen is used as a mouse-like interface, you can't input 300 actions per minute, and if you use the screen as a touch keyboard you can't do unit selection as fast and precise as a mouse.

Starcraft 2 at present is designed as a fast-paced, competitive 1v1 RTS. Other RTSs made for casual play might work but if you're not following pro tournaments and strategies there is no ongoing reason to play beyond the campaign.

You could design an RTS to use a touchscreen interface quite effectively, though the lack of multitouch hurts it somewhat. But you would have to design the game/UI around having the touchscreen.

The Wii Remote, Kinect, Move, Eyetoy, DS second screen, DS microphone, GBA gyro, and basically every hardware gimmick controller all were said to have so much unused potential at launch. Invariably, the only game to make full use of it and be market successful was the first game for each.

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

The Wii Remote, Kinect, Move, Eyetoy, DS second screen, DS microphone, GBA gyro, and basically every hardware gimmick controller all were said to have so much unused potential at launch. Invariably, the only game to make full use of it and be market successful was the first game for each.

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

This is a perennial problem for Nintendo: the only developer that cares about building games that truly take advantage of their system's unique features is...Nintendo itself. Third-party developers would rather bring a game to as many platforms as possible, and as a result, they develop games that are "lowest common denominator" – they work on all the major consoles, but they don't take advantage of each one's specific abilities.

I have a Wii, and to this day, I haven't come across a third-party game that makes better use of the Wii Remote than Wii Sports, Nintendo's own launch title.

I think this is why Nintendo's success is so heavily tied to games that use their own IP (Mario, Zelda, etc.): they're generally the only games that actually exploit the abilities of the hardware. That's why with every new system, there's a new Mario Party, a new Mario platformer, a new Mario Kart, a new Zelda platformer, etc., etc. Sure, there's a lot of history with those characters and people recognize them, but say you took one of these terrible third-party games and dropped Mario in place of the lead character – people wouldn't keep flocking back and dying with anticipation of the next new Mario game.

Anyway, that's my theory. Nintendo needs to create more incentive for third-parties to develop specifically for their consoles; I just don't know how.

Install base plus attach rate. It's not magic. You need to sell a ton of consoles, and your console users need to buy enough third-party titles, that it's worthwhile to develop for your platform rather than simply work on a more traditional game that's easily ported between Xbox, PS3, and PC (and now the Wii U, presumably).

Why develop for one when you can develop for four?

And really, aren't most console exclusives either first-party titles, or from developers that are supported in whole or in part by the console maker to keep those titles exclusive? It's not like EA spends a lot of time just choosing to release PS3 or Xbox only titles, do they? Or maybe they do, I honestly couldn't say.

But it seems like this isn't something Nintendo has particularly failed on. The issue, from what I can tell, is that both the GameCube and Wii had issues holding them back from getting decent ports, relegating both (for many) to second-system status...which further disincentivises decent ports (or exclusive development).

Note: I owned both a GC and Wii, and loved the former (less so the latter).

The Wii Remote, Kinect, Move, Eyetoy, DS second screen, DS microphone, GBA gyro, and basically every hardware gimmick controller all were said to have so much unused potential at launch. Invariably, the only game to make full use of it and be market successful was the first game for each.

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

I'll let you in on a secret, though, if we're playing that game anyway. Mario Galaxy 4, and Wario Party 9, and Super Smash Brothers: They're Really Fighting This Time For Reals aren't gonna save gaming either...no more than Licensed Cartoon Shovelware Title (with Innovataive Waggle Technlogy) 12.

The Wii Remote, Kinect, Move, Eyetoy, DS second screen, DS microphone, GBA gyro, and basically every hardware gimmick controller all were said to have so much unused potential at launch. Invariably, the only game to make full use of it and be market successful was the first game for each.

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

I am pretty sure that Just Dance 3 the second most selling game of last year, only beaten by Call of Duty. That is not including the DLC it sold. This game is pretty much based on the gimmick. The franchise has sold more than 25 million copies, that is plenty of potential. Plenty of people willing to try new things.

If no one tried anything new, we would all still be huddled in arcades playing 8-bit games.

I would like to think trying new things is what makes games always fresh. There are so many games that cross many different interests. From your grandparents to your toddler children, there is a game for them. There is just too broad of an appeal to put the genie back in the bottle.

This is a perennial problem for Nintendo: the only developer that cares about building games that truly take advantage of their system's unique features is...Nintendo itself. Third-party developers would rather bring a game to as many platforms as possible, and as a result, they develop games that are "lowest common denominator" – they work on all the major consoles, but they don't take advantage of each one's specific abilities.

I have a Wii, and to this day, I haven't come across a third-party game that makes better use of the Wii Remote than Wii Sports, Nintendo's own launch title.

I think this is why Nintendo's success is so heavily tied to games that use their own IP (Mario, Zelda, etc.): they're generally the only games that actually exploit the abilities of the hardware. That's why with every new system, there's a new Mario Party, a new Mario platformer, a new Mario Kart, a new Zelda platformer, etc., etc. Sure, there's a lot of history with those characters and people recognize them, but say you took one of these terrible third-party games and dropped Mario in place of the lead character – people wouldn't keep flocking back and dying with anticipation of the next new Mario game.

Anyway, that's my theory. Nintendo needs to create more incentive for third-parties to develop specifically for their consoles; I just don't know how.

I agree with your theory on the Wii but I don't see it applying to their other consoles especially the DS. There have been plenty of successful 3rd party games that have used the hardware capabilities. And the Wii-U is really the same idea.

At this point, not many developers has bothered to put real effort into a port yet because they don't feel it's cost-effective yet, the same reason PS3 games look no better and get worse DLC/patch treatment.

The title of this article should really be "Most Wii U LAUNCH game ports treat touchscreen GamePad as an afterthought"

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

I'll let you in on a secret, though, if we're playing that game anyway. Mario Galaxy 4, and Wario Party 9, and Super Smash Brothers: They're Really Fighting This Time For Reals aren't gonna save gaming either...no more than Licensed Cartoon Shovelware Title (with Innovataive Waggle Technlogy) 12.

wait, i'm an elitist for scoffing at people who plonk down $60 for the same game, season after season? ...for losing just a bit of respect for someone when i see 15 fifa/madden discs on their shelf? three or four, fine... after that, it's just... wat

wait, i'm an elitist for scoffing at people who plonk down $60 for the same game, season after season? ...for losing just a bit of respect for someone when i see 15 fifa/madden discs on their shelf? three or four, fine... after that, it's just... wat

yup.

also, most folks I know sell off their old copies when they buy the new ones.

It seems to me it's just too early for teams to have figured out the best ways to utilize it, let alone have time to implement them.

That these are ports, makes it even harder to design in the gamepad, since it wasn't considered from the start.

This seems to be a constant problem with Nintendo's new consoles, remember how many people were disappointed with the first couple of Wii third part titles?

It's not solely Nintendo's problem either, plenty of developers make lackluster kinect and move titles. It just seems like these companies focus on making a peripheral that no developer wants to use, meanwhile some no name raises $2 million on kickstarter for a VR helmet that plenty of high profile developers want to use (*cough* Notch). If the oculus rift and ouya are any indication, people are tired of being told by The Great Three how to play games.

wait, i'm an elitist for scoffing at people who plonk down $60 for the same game, season after season? ...for losing just a bit of respect for someone when i see 15 fifa/madden discs on their shelf? three or four, fine... after that, it's just... wat

yup.

also, most folks I know sell off their old copies when they buy the new ones.

at a considerable loss, i'm sure... they should just stop pretending, and turn it into a subscription service, because it pretty much is.

and NOW i'm going to venture off into curmudgeon territory: the last few Halo games have been considerably underwhelming. as much as i like valhalla, it's not cool to rename it ragnarok and re-sell it to me with different gun meshes (and a death robot).

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

I'll let you in on a secret, though, if we're playing that game anyway. Mario Galaxy 4, and Wario Party 9, and Super Smash Brothers: They're Really Fighting This Time For Reals aren't gonna save gaming either...no more than Licensed Cartoon Shovelware Title (with Innovataive Waggle Technlogy) 12.

wait, i'm an elitist for scoffing at people who plonk down $60 for the same game, season after season? ...for losing just a bit of respect for someone when i see 15 fifa/madden discs on their shelf? three or four, fine... after that, it's just... wat

Whether or not you're an elitest is subjective, what you definitely are is a bad arguer. The OP mentioned nothing about any of the games you listed. To assume s/he meant any of them when s/he said, "Please just make good games that sell," well, that's a strawman.

Take a moment to look around. You may notice there are a ton of great games that sell on other systems that have absolutely nothing to do with Madden, COD, or Tom Clancy.

Right now, I'm perfectly happy with a version of Assassin's Creed III that gives me my HUD, but doesn't put it in the way of my admiration of the game's art design. That's worth it for me. Give it time, companies will figure out how to use the pad. At worst, we'll end up with what amounts to a big, HD Nintendo DS. And I'm A-OK with that.

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

I'll let you in on a secret, though, if we're playing that game anyway. Mario Galaxy 4, and Wario Party 9, and Super Smash Brothers: They're Really Fighting This Time For Reals aren't gonna save gaming either...no more than Licensed Cartoon Shovelware Title (with Innovataive Waggle Technlogy) 12.

wait, i'm an elitist for scoffing at people who plonk down $60 for the same game, season after season? ...for losing just a bit of respect for someone when i see 15 fifa/madden discs on their shelf? three or four, fine... after that, it's just... wat

Whether or not you're an elitest is subjective, what you definitely are is a bad arguer. The OP mentioned nothing about any of the games you listed. To assume s/he meant any of them when s/he said, "Please just make good games that sell," well, that's a strawman.

Take a moment to look around. You may notice there are a ton of great games that sell on other systems that have absolutely nothing to do with Madden, COD, or Tom Clancy.

i liked the internet more before "straw man" was part of slackjaw lingo..... what you've done is to cut the quote short to fit your desired outcome.

here's the full quote.

Quote:

Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

bold mine. no wonder you cut that out on the way to screaming straw man

The Wii Remote, Kinect, Move, Eyetoy, DS second screen, DS microphone, GBA gyro, and basically every hardware gimmick controller all were said to have so much unused potential at launch. Invariably, the only game to make full use of it and be market successful was the first game for each.

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

I wasn't aware that gaming was in need of saving. Given ever increasing yearly revenue, and the fact that all of the best selling titles were sequels (regardless of the platform upon which they were released). Seems to me most companies, including the big N, are perfectly happy releasing sequels that sell by the truckload. Unless of course you mistakenly thought that Metroid, Zelda and Mario were brand new properties on the Wii. That Halo wasn't already an evolution of Bungie's first three Marathon games for the Mac and PC. That God of War 3 was just a title misprint. Or that Activision's Call of Duty series wasn't still one of the biggest multiplatform sellers ever.

I'm all for new IP (really enjoyed Dishonored) whether it's from a big developer or some small team in a garage. I'm also for taking proper advantage of available hardware rather than just adding waggle so you can include Wiimote or Six Axis support as a bullet point on the back of your box.

I don't have a Wii U, so I don't have any personal experience with the console or what it feels like to use the GamePad's screen, but my intuition tells me that at least part of the awkwardness associated with using the touchscreen for time sensitive actions (such as choosing a power in Mass Effect 3, as mentioned in the article) might have just as much to do with the novelty of the input method as it does with inherent shortcomings of said method. In other words, we have been trained to become proficient in a certain physical vocabulary by traditional controllers; we "feel" our way around a controller in the same way a touch-typist feels his/her way around a keyboard.

The Wii U GamePad introduces a new element to that physical vocabulary. It's one to which we're completely unaccustomed, so naturally the best-feeling actions on it are ones that don't require fast reflexes to undertake. I very rarely play shooters, so the twitch accuracy required of me when I'm playing Halo multiplayer is much less preferable to me than the methodical placement of soldiers in XCOM (or, if you prefer a closer analogue, the slightly less frenetic shooting action in Red Dead Redemption with auto-aim off). To extend the typing metaphor, if I suddenly switched to a Dvorak keyboard, I probably wouldn't do a good job on the typing tests that I currently do very well on. In all of these situations, the control scheme isn't (necessarily) broken, it's just that my familiarity - or lack thereof - is such that I can't do everything I could do on a more familiar scheme.

Of course, using the Wii U touchscreen for time-sensitive actions may never prove useful. Only time can tell us that, as more games are designed from the beginning with the Wii U in mind (and with a desire for quality that is usually missing from third-party launch games anyway). No reason not to give it a fair shake, though.

The Wii Remote, Kinect, Move, Eyetoy, DS second screen, DS microphone, GBA gyro, and basically every hardware gimmick controller all were said to have so much unused potential at launch. Invariably, the only game to make full use of it and be market successful was the first game for each.

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

I wasn't aware that gaming was in need of saving. Given ever increasing yearly revenue, and the fact that all of the best selling titles were sequels (regardless of the platform upon which they were released). Seems to me most companies, including the big N, are perfectly happy releasing sequels that sell by the truckload. Unless of course you mistakenly thought that Metroid, Zelda and Mario were brand new properties on the Wii. That Halo wasn't already an evolution of Bungie's first three Marathon games for the Mac and PC. That God of War 3 was just a title misprint. Or that Activision's Call of Duty series wasn't still one of the biggest multiplatform sellers ever.

I'm all for new IP (really enjoyed Dishonored) whether it's from a big developer or some small team in a garage. I'm also for taking proper advantage of available hardware rather than just adding waggle so you can include Wiimote or Six Axis support as a bullet point on the back of your box.

But, no. Gaming is not in need of saving. Not even close.

i was being sarcastic. gaming is not the most exciting it's ever been atm, but it's doing alright.

i feel like halo: odst was a complete waste of my money. 3 and reach were worth it. i expected a new game for halo 4, but what i got was some of the better aspects of reach glued onto 3. i'd be less annoyed if i hadn't paid $new prices for all of 'em. i'll be sitting on my hands next round. at least until the used prices come down....

I wasn't aware that gaming was in need of saving. Given ever increasing yearly revenue, and the fact that all of the best selling titles were sequels (regardless of the platform upon which they were released). Seems to me most companies, including the big N, are perfectly happy releasing sequels that sell by the truckload. Unless of course you mistakenly thought that Metroid, Zelda and Mario were brand new properties on the Wii. That Halo wasn't already an evolution of Bungie's first three Marathon games for the Mac and PC. That God of War 3 was just a title misprint. Or that Activision's Call of Duty series wasn't still one of the biggest multiplatform sellers ever.

I'm all for new IP (really enjoyed Dishonored) whether it's from a big developer or some small team in a garage. I'm also for taking proper advantage of available hardware rather than just adding waggle so you can include Wiimote or Six Axis support as a bullet point on the back of your box.

But, no. Gaming is not in need of saving. Not even close.

That's where the hipsterism somes in.

Gaming is no more in need of saving than movies or music, and perhaps less so. Sure, too many movies are sequels, remakes, or reboots. But some of those are good, and there's other novel content created every single year as well.

Same for music.

The whole "lulz Madden CoD Halo blah blah blah" thing is, to some extent, no different than the kid in the glasses and cardigan insisting that one band is crap now because they "sold out."

People, including myself, like some of those games. Some of those same people enjoy more offbeaet and original titles as well. Same way there are people who watch both indie/foreign films and the latest superhero sequel. And enjoy both, because both can be enjoyable.

Gaming is no more in need of saving than movies or music, and perhaps less so. Sure, too many movies are sequels, remakes, or reboots. But some of those are good, and there's other novel content created every single year as well.

Same for music.

The whole "lulz Madden CoD Halo blah blah blah" thing is, to some extent, no different than the kid in the glasses and cardigan insisting that one band is crap now because they "sold out."

People, including myself, like some of those games. Some of those same people enjoy more offbeaet and original titles as well. Same way there are people who watch both indie/foreign films and the latest superhero sequel. And enjoy both, because both can be enjoyable.

you can pay $100 to get a 60-second zip-line ride across a canyon or a city in any number of places. i wager it's a blast; quite enjoyable. however, those with some sense of financial responsibility cringe at blowing $100 for 60 seconds of entertainment. my complaint was that numerous franchises re-sell the same game over and over, just changing the football jerseys and theme music (or whatever). sure, the game is entertaining. it's as refined as grandma's purl two, at this point. it's also the same stitch, the same game you've already bought five times.... why buy it again? this is not about being ~unique~ or ~trendy~ so much as it is having more than two or three functioning brain cells.

and, like i said before, i was being sarcastic (melodramatic?) about "saving gaming."

The Wii Remote, Kinect, Move, Eyetoy, DS second screen, DS microphone, GBA gyro, and basically every hardware gimmick controller all were said to have so much unused potential at launch. Invariably, the only game to make full use of it and be market successful was the first game for each.

Okay, I've seen several DS games that actually make good use of multiple screens.

The Wii Remote was useful for several different games (listed in my post above; they aren't even necessarily the same genres) though it is true that the motion controls and the IR sensor were mostly independent of each other.

Quote:

There is no "potential" for any of this. Please just make good games that sell; take your existing games and make worthy sequels with new content but unchanged gameplay. It's so much easier and less resource intensive than trying to do "new" stuff badly.

Of course there is potential for it. Part of the problem is that people like you exist. You don't like being challenged, you'll just eat up the same thing every year, endlessly.

Quote:

Why develop for one when you can develop for four?

Because you can focus in on optimization and taking advantage of the medium. There are games you can make on the DS and the Wii U that you can't make on other systems. There are games you can make on the PC that you can't make on other systems. There aren't games you can make on the PS3 or the XBox 360 that you can't make on other systems.

Quote:

I wasn't aware that gaming was in need of saving. Given ever increasing yearly revenue, and the fact that all of the best selling titles were sequels (regardless of the platform upon which they were released). Seems to me most companies, including the big N, are perfectly happy releasing sequels that sell by the truckload. Unless of course you mistakenly thought that Metroid, Zelda and Mario were brand new properties on the Wii. That Halo wasn't already an evolution of Bungie's first three Marathon games for the Mac and PC. That God of War 3 was just a title misprint. Or that Activision's Call of Duty series wasn't still one of the biggest multiplatform sellers ever.

I think he was decrying the lack of innovation and risk-taking, and CoD's scores on MC are getting lower by the year, so someone has to be getting tired of them. I think there is some concern (which is justified) that at some point, the fact that these companies simply refuse to take risks will result in stagnation and market collapse. That being said, I don't think its very likely - even if those companies go belly up, I'm pretty confident that, say, Valve will still be around and still selling games on Steam, and I see plenty of new content on Steam on a regular basis.

So I'm not worried. Just shaking my head a bit.

Also, to be fair, while it is true that Nintendo does release the "same games" for new systems, they HAVE been innovating - Wii Sports and Wii Fit were both brand new for the last generation. They also (generally) space things out further, though they've been milking the cows a bit too often of late - while Zelda was spaced out a fair bit, the Mario games have been less so, and the lack of innovation there showed (and I actually consider Galaxy to be a major step backwards from Mario 64 in terms of level design - it went for spectacle but the levels were actually less interesting than the Mario 64 levels in terms of exploration - the galaxy levels were horribly linear affairs). My main complaint there is that they've found formulas for a lot of their games and are sticking to them instead of innovating - what made going from Mario to Mario 2 to Mario 3 to Super Mario World to Super Mario World 2 so cool was that every game was quite different, and while Mario -> Mario 3 -> SMW was the "real" progression, each improved upon the last. We just haven't seen that sort of progression of late.

I think he was decrying the lack of innovation and risk-taking, and CoD's scores on MC are getting lower by the year, so someone has to be getting tired of them. I think there is some concern (which is justified) that at some point, the fact that these companies simply refuse to take risks will result in stagnation and market collapse. That being said, I don't think its very likely - even if those companies go belly up, I'm pretty confident that, say, Valve will still be around and still selling games on Steam, and I see plenty of new content on Steam on a regular basis.

So I'm not worried. Just shaking my head a bit.

the reason they're so risk-averse is simple: a-list games now cost just as much as movies to make, and no one gives you that sort of money to just "try something out." you need small companies with nothing at stake, or wise despotic CEOs with a nose for the new....

edit: i suppose it only makes sense to milk call of duty until everyone hates it. they can't screw with it too much, or people get mad (see: win8). yes, there is novel content being created all the time. this does not change my contempt for these boilerplate franchises. i recommend that everyone stop buying them, because they'll only stop pumping them out + do something new when the river dries up.

Unfortunately, it seems like Nintendo will have to share some development ideas with third party developers that they might have reserved for their own IP in order for the GamePad to gain some traction.

I don't have a Wii U, so I don't have any personal experience with the console or what it feels like to use the GamePad's screen, but my intuition tells me that at least part of the awkwardness associated with using the touchscreen for time sensitive actions (such as choosing a power in Mass Effect 3, as mentioned in the article) might have just as much to do with the novelty of the input method as it does with inherent shortcomings of said method. In other words, we have been trained to become proficient in a certain physical vocabulary by traditional controllers; we "feel" our way around a controller in the same way a touch-typist feels his/her way around a keyboard.

The Wii U GamePad introduces a new element to that physical vocabulary. It's one to which we're completely unaccustomed, so naturally the best-feeling actions on it are ones that don't require fast reflexes to undertake. I very rarely play shooters, so the twitch accuracy required of me when I'm playing Halo multiplayer is much less preferable to me than the methodical placement of soldiers in XCOM (or, if you prefer a closer analogue, the slightly less frenetic shooting action in Red Dead Redemption with auto-aim off). To extend the typing metaphor, if I suddenly switched to a Dvorak keyboard, I probably wouldn't do a good job on the typing tests that I currently do very well on. In all of these situations, the control scheme isn't (necessarily) broken, it's just that my familiarity - or lack thereof - is such that I can't do everything I could do on a more familiar scheme.

Of course, using the Wii U touchscreen for time-sensitive actions may never prove useful. Only time can tell us that, as more games are designed from the beginning with the Wii U in mind (and with a desire for quality that is usually missing from third-party launch games anyway). No reason not to give it a fair shake, though.

This +1.

On top of that I have to wonder if Nintendo are trying to make something that stands out from the crowd, even if it is not conducive or intuitive to gameplay. While console manufacturers feel they need something to make their system sell, obviously to differentiate between console and PC (and other consoles), it isn't really necessary. Good games sell a console (and good single player experiences at that!) Consoles use to be great for kids because they were: insert the media, turn on and play. That's pretty hard to break. Maybe they should focus on that first?

Kyle Orland / Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in Pittsburgh, PA.